Sorry about the duplicate comments. Not sure if it was the server or the app I was using, but I didn’t think they posted until it was too late and I re submitted it.

Anyway, I agree to this idea in theory, but only if there are extremely clear thresholds before the rule is invoked. For example: a limit on authors’ statements of opinion. Ways that are unacceptable for the article to refer to its subjects.

Basically I think we should debate the rules we want, but once we have consensus I wouldn’t want us also fighting about what does or doesn’t break the rules. Let’s please make the rules clear and measurable.

I think this is good in theory, but we would need to have a clear line and ways to determine when the line has been crossed. This also relates to discussions on news vs opinion and editorial. I could imagine a rule limiting the number of statements of opinion in an article before the rule is invoked. That’s just one idea, but whatever is decided should be so clear and measurable to help prevent fighting about if something broke the rule or not.